It has been widely reported today that Ofcom have released the results of tests conducted by SamKnows into the discrepancy between the marketing led "up to" figures by which our broadband is sold and the actual throughput that is delivered.
One such article: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=194932&site=lr_cable&f_src=lrdailynewsletter
Congratulations to SamKnows for producing the empirical evidence to highlight a problem that many of us have known has existed for some time.
Now, Ofcom... you've highlighted the issue... what do you intend to do about it? Your remit as regulator of this industry is to ensure that we, the consumer, are not misled by false advertising.
Allow me to suggest that you outlaw the use of the words "up to" and force ISPs to publish details of their own line tests and contention ratios so we can make a more informed decision. While you are at it please also work with BDUK on their USO definition and make sure that both the phrases "up to" and "a line capable of" are removed from their parlance.
One final note to Virgin Media, well done! You are at least closer to your "up to" rates than those copper-based ISPs! Sadly I just don't have the choice.
Tuesday 27 July 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I suspect Advertising falls under the remit of the ASA, not OFCOM.
ReplyDeleteIt is of course the ASA that require the use of "up to" on fixed speed products. This was the case with 0.5, 1, 2M. With higher speed services supplied using variable rate connectivity they require further clarification of the variability within the body text. See Bulldog ruling c2005.
So I fail to see how you're going to convince the body that introduced "up to" to get rid of it.
The only reason VM are closer to their headline speed is that it's a fixed speed service and they quote the speed at a higher level protocol in the network stack to start with.
What's your constructive proposal for advertising a variable rate service ?
you got samknows
ReplyDeletegreat man
zopiclone